аЯрЁБс > ўџ ? A ўџџџ > џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџьЅС #` №П і bjbjЁЁ 0 У У і џџ џџ џџ Є ц ц ц ц ц ц ц D $ $ $ $ 0 `  њ H H H H H H . v  $ 
h § Т @ ц  H H   @ ц ц H H U ў ў ў  ^ ц H ц H ў  ў ў ц ц ў H @ьhЉЧ $ є
ў k 0  ў П
ў П
ў П
ц ў ў    @ @ ў         ` ` ` Ф $ ` ` ` $ њ ц ц ц ц ц ц џџџџ Health Subcommittee Bill Bans and Restricts Advertising
BACKGROUND: The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health plans to markup a drug safety bill that contains five restrictions on speech: (1) A three-year ban on ads for new medications, (2) preapproval of ad content by FDA, (3) mandated warning language about nonspecific, unidentified adverse events, (4) mandated warning symbol for all new drugs, and (5) required preapproval of a medications marketing plan by FDA.
We OPPOSE any government BAN on advertising for up to 3 years or the granting of unprecedented powers to FDA to pre-clear all advertising content, to require non-specific warnings of unidentified risks in ads, inclusion of warning symbols that imply that new medications are dangerous, and government preapproval of marketing plans, even though FDA has approved the medication.
We SUPPORT giving the Commissioner of FDA authority similar to that used by the Federal Trade Commission to determine in an administrative hearing if advertising is false or misleading and to levy fines against pharmaceutical companies that do not present truthful ads.
REQUEST: We urge the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health to reject moratoriums on ads, pre-approval of ads, mandated speech or warning symbols in ads, preapproval of marketing plans, and any other unconstitutional restrictions on advertising.
 The First Amendment rejects prior restraint of speech in favor of seeking penalties if speech is found to violate any laws.
 Five Constitutional scholars have written their opinions that the bans and restrictions on advertising proposed by some Members of Congress, and rejected by the Senate, would violate the First Amendment protection of commercial speech. They are unconstitutional because they ban or propose restrictions on speech before it occurs.
 Current law already requires advertising for prescription medications to disclose all major risks, as well as benefits  otherwise the ads can be found to be false or misleading.
 FDA today lacks the practical power to sanction false advertising. Unlike the Federal Trade Commission that can levy fines on false ads, FDA may only remove an entire drug from the market  a remedy so harsh it is never used.
 Truthful advertising assures that millions of consumers will receive important information about the risks and side effects of advertised medications so they can discuss them with their doctors  information that would be denied them by any ban on advertising. No consumer may obtain these medications without a doctor writing a prescription, which is a vital safeguard and reason enough not to restrict advertising.
 We support the action taken by the United States Senate to reject these severe restrictions on speech and instead to give FDA authority to fine false and misleading ads. The Health Subcommittee draft would bar consumers from receiving new information in the form of advertising for three years, and put the government in the role of advertising editor in chief.
9 : E щ я e l s u
 ѕ і ёшкЭНЭНЭкЭЙЭЙ hиEд h, hиEд 59CJ OJ QJ hEhІ hиEд CJ OJ QJ h_v hиEд 5CJ OJ QJ hEhІ hиEд CJ h, hиEд 5CJ OJ QJ
9 : х ц a b r s u
v
є
ѕ
D E њ ћ р с  ѕ і ї ѕ щ щ щ щ щ щ щ щ е е е е е е е е е е е ѕ
Ц Д а8Д Lџ^Д `LџgdиEд
Ц hа8gdиEд $a$gdиEд і § . :pиEд Аа/ Ар=!А0"А0# $ %А АаАаа  